Transcript Highlights:

• fees on actual restaurant revenue.
• In 2025, our group paid over $350,000 in credit card fees, but close to $100,000 of which was on fees
• That fee is not currently...
• That fee is not currently refunded.
• The interchange fees paid to the issuing bank or credit union, fees to the acquiring bank, fees to the

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one, we're adding language to say a fee or fees per transaction cannot come in above $7.50.
• They are fee-based.
• Those fees have to be clear.
• fees, and payday loans.
• is a one-time fee.

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned the fees.
• That’s a separate fee, interchange... ...That’s a separate fee.
• , not the processor fee, not the acquiring fee, just that.
• They publish fee schedules, which have hundreds of categories of fee rates for interchange fees.
• other fee that they charge—interest rates or late fees or things like that—each bank sets its own fee

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• the fee.
• <00:13:03.320> are retake fee um and all these fees are retake fee um and all these fees are
• The filing fee is...
• the driver's license agent fee-sharing account collecting revenue from those filing fees.
• They collect that fee now.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and you pay professional fees.
• We adopted impact fees in 2015.
• As it stands right now, a portion of that is taken up by impact fees or offset by impact fees.
• These fees are causing builders to leave our high-impact fee city for a non-impact fee city area like
• fees seven times.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> The impact fee?
• with that impact fee. with that impact fee.
• >> The the impact fee? >> The the impact fee?
• <00:21:24.960> and<00:21:25.120> the fee um because the impact fee and the fee um because
• Thank you. fees going forward. So fees going forward.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House committees on Housing and Education heard HB 1713, HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and transfer remaining balances in the school impact fee and certain fair share accounts to the school facilities special fund. The Department of Education testified in opposition, while the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, the Attorney General’s office (with comments and suggested constitutional amendments), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, NAP Hawaii, Avalon Development Company, Mark Development, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Landis Research Foundation, BIA Hawaii, and others testified in support. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered comments. The DOE said the bill would weaken a key tool for matching school facilities to residential growth, while supporters said the current program leaves funds unused or restricted in ways that limit their effectiveness. A lengthy discussion followed about the difference between the older school impact fee program and the separate fair share agreements tied to land use entitlements and change-of-zone approvals. DOE Deputy Superintendent Jesse Suki explained that fair share funds are tied to the district where they were collected, may be too small to build a full school on their own, and are held until needed for projects such as Core Ridge, Central and West Maui, and other planned schools. Committee members pressed DOE on why funds had remained unspent for years, how much money was in the accounts, and whether the department had reviewed audit findings about the program. Members also questioned whether homeowners ultimately bear these costs through developers passing them along. The committee did not take a vote during the portion of the meeting provided. The discussion ended with members and DOE debating whether the current statute should remain in place, whether past entitlements should be affected, and whether the bill should be amended to better address remaining construction-related obligations and the use of collected funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• administrative fee. administrative fee.
• the fee.
• And if it's a fair fee, is it the right fee?
• Then, um fair fee, is it the right fee?
• the waiver of the Um which is the fee the waiver of the fee. fee. fee.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee first approved the March 16, 2026 minutes, then took up several Department of Transportation property actions. The committee approved a Greenland access point sale for a cell tower site to Wakefield Investments for $132,800 plus a $1,100 administrative fee, and approved disposal of two Epsom parcels to the town at no cost, with the town assuming demolition of the former depot and the committee waiving the fee. It also approved a Milton access point sale to Jeremy West Champney and Cameron McDermott for $90,000 plus the fee, with conditions requiring permits and other approvals. During the DOT items, members asked about appraisals, access restrictions, and where the administrative fee goes; staff said the fee generally offsets agency administrative costs and may go to a dedicated fund or the general fund depending on the project. The committee then considered three Department of Environmental Services requests for utility easements to bring power to dams so gates can be operated more efficiently and potentially remotely. It approved an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Pine River Dam in Wakefield, an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Sunset Lake Dam in Alton, and an easement with Eversource for Suncook Lake Dam in Barnstead. Members discussed whether to waive the $1,100 administrative fee on these items, with some questioning the fee’s purpose and where it is deposited. The committee ultimately approved the DES items as requested, including the fee waivers, while asking staff to research the fee’s history, sufficiency, and use for a future report. Finally, the committee received informational items from the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development. Members briefly discussed a property at Bloody Point in Newington and the related Sullivan Bridge demolition, and DOT staff said the property had been tabled previously and is now being worked on with Fish and Game for a possible transfer of management and future water access use. No votes were taken on the informational items.

Transcript Highlights:

• A political subdivision is not limited in how frequently it may impose an impact fee. ...but impact fees
• This document is the 2022 impact fee study for transportation impact fees in the City of Fort Worth.
• Impact fees play a major factor in that.
• They're just getting whacked on these fees.
• A couple of things: impact fee statutes...

Bills: SB32, SB464, SB996, SB1163, SB1173, SB1277, SB1452, SB1453, SB1548, SB1882, SB1883, SB2016

Keywords: ad valorem taxation, tax exemption, franchise tax credit, income production, personal property, SB 464, school buffer zone, tobacco retailer, vape shop, e-cigarette, vaping, nicotine, tobacco products, retail permit, comptroller, Class A misdemeanor, school proximity, youth access, public school, private school

Summary: The Senate Local Government Committee heard several bills by Senator Bettencourt focused on property tax and local government accountability. SB 32 would provide about $700 million in business tax relief by raising the business personal property exemption from $2,500 to $25,000 and continuing a 20% franchise tax credit for inventory taxes paid. Witnesses from NFIB, the Texas Retailers Association, and Texas Realtors supported the bill, saying business personal property and inventory taxes are burdensome and especially hard on small businesses. After no opposition testimony, SB 32 was left pending. The committee also heard SB 1453, which would change how interest and sinking tax rates are calculated by using only the minimum debt service required under bond schedules, while still allowing a higher rate with a 60% governing body vote and a public explanation. A witness from the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association supported the bill as a way to keep debt rates from rising as property values increase and to preserve tax relief. The bill was left pending after testimony. SB 1883 would tighten rules on local impact fees by requiring 60 days of public availability for capital improvement plans and land use assumptions, raising the approval threshold for adopting impact fees from a simple majority to two-thirds, limiting how often fees can be increased, and expanding notice requirements. Builders and developers testified in support, arguing that impact fees are often poorly reviewed, lack accountability, and are passed on to homebuyers, worsening housing affordability. Committee members discussed adding audit provisions and questioned the lack of city testimony. The bill was left pending with subcommittee action. SB 1452 would require a voter election to decide whether a municipal management district continues to exist, with dissolution if voters reject it; supporters said it would add accountability, while others noted some districts provide essential services and infrastructure. The committee heard testimony from district representatives and builders, then left SB 1452 pending before recessing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• or fees and equipment costs that are divided between the state and the county. fees or fees and equipment
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• , the administration fee?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• fees, fee revenues generate by almost a million dollars.
• that you waive the fees?
• is a larger fee.
• the administration fee?

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• or gain these fees.
• While I understand there are fees and that I have to pay fees, the duplicate fees are a issue in this
• Lower fees.
• Or is this just fee on top of fee on top of fee that goes to the general fund that just... you know,
• We need to have less fees. What would I do if I had less fees?

Bills: SB264, SB542, SB924, SB1008, SB1029, SB1036, SB1057, SB1058, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1376, SB1569, SB1664, SB1697, SJR50

Keywords: SB 264, Texas Workers' Compensation Act, group self-insurance, self-insured groups, workers' compensation, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, certificate of approval, guaranty fund, trust fund, wind down, dissolution, labor code, insurance regulation, employer coverage, risk pool, business and commerce, trade workforce economic development, property owners' association, water conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen fees that are 25% a year.
• that the fees utilities to demonstrate that the fees are<00:02:13.360> just,<00:02:14.000>
• would eliminate most reconnection fees. would eliminate most reconnection fees.
• Reconnection fees for non-payment. Reconnection fees for non-payment.
• program is funded by late fees. program is funded by late fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3912, as amended, and the author moved that the bill be laid over for consideration in a future omnibus bill. The amendment was adopted without objection. Representative Holland described the bill as an energy affordability measure that would bar utilities from charging certain fees during the cold weather rule for customers above 50% of state median income, prohibit reconnection fees after shutoff for nonpayment, and create a framework for regulating late fees. He argued that late fees are often high, compound monthly, and disproportionately burden low-income households, citing utility debt and disconnection figures and noting that the need for relief is concentrated in greater Minnesota. Annie Levenson Faulk of the Citizens Utility Board supported the bill, saying reconnection fees and late fees fall on households already struggling to pay for essential service. She said reconnection fees should be treated as part of the cost of doing business and that late fees should be limited to a reasonable approximation of actual carrying costs, with protections for low-income customers. She also said the issue is already being considered in utility rate cases before the Public Utilities Commission, but that legislative action is still appropriate. Nick Martin of Xcel Energy and Katherine O'Donnell of CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill in its current form while emphasizing their companies’ commitment to affordability and customer assistance. Xcel said the bill would shift reconnection costs to other customers and could undermine a proposed arrears management program funded by late payment charges; Xcel also noted that the PUC is already reviewing these issues in its rate case. CenterPoint said it already offers extensive outreach, payment plans, and assistance programs, does not charge late fees once a customer is on a payment plan, and that its reconnection fee does not fully cover costs. After testimony and brief discussion, the chair noted the helpful information from utilities, the author said he was open to further work on the bill, and the bill was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• that section is— all the fees within this subdivision, every fee?
• within this subdivision, every fee?
• 2.28 um the very first examination fees 2.28 um the very first examination fees um<00:14:49.079>
• keep this fee long term.
• no-show fee or on the no- show fee no-show fee or on the no- show fee altogether<00:26:17.720>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• So, again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...
• Another example of a state agency raising fees and then rounding those fees up.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Governor’s housing reorganization proposal and trailer bill language that would consolidate several affordable housing finance programs under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC). Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplication, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits so projects can move from award to construction more quickly. The proposal would also shift some positions and reallocate portions of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and other housing funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the concept has merit but raised concerns about the proposed bond set-aside floor and recommended more flexibility and earlier reallocation of unused bonds. Several senators questioned the structure and, especially, the proposed changes to the climate-related ASIC program, arguing that it could weaken the program’s original transportation-and-housing integration and that the budget lacks enough direct funding for core housing production programs. The item was held open. The committee then received an update from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal tax credit changes and state housing finance tools. Staff explained that federal H.R. 1 increased the 9% low-income housing tax credit allocation and reduced the bond-financing threshold for the 4% credit from 50% to 25%, allowing California to finance many more projects. They reported that emergency regulations were adopted quickly to implement the new federal rules, resulting in awards for 195 projects and more than 25,000 units in the 4% program, while the 9% program funded 58 projects and nearly 3,000 units. Members discussed the importance of state enhanced low-income housing tax credits, with committee questions focused on how much additional leverage state credits provide and how they help fill remaining financing gaps. The final portion of the hearing focused on the Civil Rights Department’s response to federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing the end of limited-term funding: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal civil rights enforcement has been weakened by closed offices, shuttered programs, and reduced support for fair housing organizations, while CRD’s open caseload has grown from about 8,700 to more than 12,000 matters. He said the department is using overtime, triage, and process reengineering to manage the surge and to direct people to the right services. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern that California is being asked to do more with less as federal protections erode. No votes were taken on the informational items, and the committee discussed the vote-only budget requests for CRD separately.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even with this fee increase in the proposed fee increase in the trailer bill language.
• And we don't want to be dealing with partial increments for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• So again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• example of fees to businesses.
• To propose a fee that...

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• The inspection, reinspection flat fee would be a cost per trip, and then the fees established by the
• , and it is a fee-for-service.
• It is a fee-for-service.
• , fees, fees.
• Permit fees were within 10 or 15%. I.E., a $200,000 building, the permit fee was really close.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Labor Committee heard Senate File 560, a bill to require the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to establish a cost-per-square-foot valuation for residential building permits. Senator Dornink said the measure is intended to make permit fees more fair, reasonable, transparent, and predictable, and to reduce housing costs by limiting large differences in permit fees between municipalities. He said the bill would be sent to the Housing Committee without recommendation, and members discussed but did not act on a related amendment that would have shifted plan review and inspection fees to hourly and trip-based charges and made fee information publicly available. Testimony from Housing First Minnesota supported the bill’s goal, arguing that Minnesota’s housing shortage and high new-home prices make it important to reduce inefficiencies in the permitting system. The witness said permit valuations are often increased by cities, leading to higher costs for homebuyers, and cited examples of large fee differences between municipalities and claims of overcollection. He said some other states, including Texas and Wisconsin communities, use square-footage-based approaches. A League of Minnesota Cities representative opposed the amendment language and cautioned that trip charges and hourly billing would make fees less certain, could raise costs, and would be especially burdensome in Greater Minnesota; he said current valuation-based fees better reflect the actual cost and complexity of service and can be appealed if disputed. A representative of the Association of Minnesota Building Officials also raised concerns about the amendment, saying building departments provide consultations, inspections, plan review, and other services beyond a single trip, and that trip charges would not fit a responsive fee-for-service model. He said the current valuation system helps cover the full range of permitting work, though he acknowledged that a consistent square-foot valuation standard could improve transparency and reduce disputes over project value. Committee members asked about other states’ approaches and the scope of the bill, and the discussion emphasized that the proposal applies to one- and two-family dwellings.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a real hodgepodge of structures, but most do require entrance fees; 83% require entrance fees.
• and monthly fees.
• deals with entrance fees.
• With regard to monthly care fees, this is really the number one source of stress for residents: the fees
• So, the fees and fee increases will fluctuate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment?” “Yes, it is.”
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee.” “It is legally a fee at that point in time.
• It is not a fee unto itself.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the Mitigation Fee Act.
• and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller, and requiring that fees for
• Because many times they're avoiding impact fees, school fees, and they're already having to pay.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right? Yes.
• So your fee under current law would be 25% of whatever the fee is, right?

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have the fee in place.
• Legally, the board approves the fee. Is the fee a legal fee at that moment? Yes. All right, it is.
• So you have a legal fee.
• It is a fee. It's legally a fee. That's correct. At that point in time.
• of their fees.

Keywords: 988, house, all